MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Possibilities for the integration of fish farming into irrigation systems

2000· article· en· W2060749824 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Management and Ecology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationHabitatAgricultureStockingIntegrated farmingFish farmingAgroforestryFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Environmental scienceEcologyAquacultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Harvesting fish in irrigation systems, sometimes involving some form of husbandry or even culture, is a practice which dates back at least two millennia. Although seldom recorded, it seems to have been widespread in the tropics and subtropics, especially in rice fields. In the present century, improved management for land‐based crops and the demands for the successful raising of aquatic organisms were not generally compatible, but with the advent of integrated crop protection, this situation has changed drastically. Moreover, irrigation systems using stored or diverted water have increased exponentially during the past 50 years, but fish farming within these irrigated systems has not expanded equally, and therefore, there is now a huge potential for this integrated enterprise. A systematic approach to fish farming development at irrigation system level which will make this integration a viable enterprise is proposed. The whole range of aquatic habitats created by irrigation systems can be integrated with fish farming. Small and large irrigation reservoirs, the extensive network of irrigation canals, the irrigated fields themselves, as well as adjacent ponds or aquatic refuges of various sorts are all potential sites for nursing or grow‐out of fish. In many countries, there is now relatively easy access to fish seed, even in inland areas. Permanent water bodies should be stocked with a central pool of culture species harvested from short‐lived habitats which serve as nurseries. A flexible system of moving culture fish within the system of habitats should be feasible. For example, stocking material for reservoirs can be obtained from irrigated rice fields where the short maturation period of the crop only permits the harvest of fingerlings. If a pragmatic and flexible approach is made to use all habitats for fish production, there could be a year‐round supply of fish and a minimum wastage of stocks of cultured fish. The use of high‐yielding fish of good quality is essential for economic viability. In areas where a high diversity of fish with a requisite biomass of desirable species already exists, these indigenous fish can be harvested, but their yields may only be adequate for low‐income rural areas. Common carp, Cyprinus carpio L., has traditionally been a preferred cultured species. Tilapia are proposed as an alternative because these fish are cheap to raise, give high yields and are also quite palatable. Aside from economic revenues, this type of integration also involves ecological and social benefits. High densities of fish in irrigation systems enhance the yield of land crops, alleviate the pressure of terrestrial and aquatic pests, and lower the populations of vectors of diseases of man and domestic animals.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it